sustainability

Review
Academic Standards and Quality Assurance:
The Impact of COVID-19 on University
Degree Programs
Kelum A. A. Gamage 1, * , R. G. G. Roshan Pradeep 2 , Vesna Najdanovic-Visak 3
and Nanda Gunawardhana 4
1 James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
2 University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka; roshan_pradeep268@yahoo.com
3 Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry (CEAC), Energy & Bioproducts Research Institute (EBRI),
Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK; v.najdanovic@aston.ac.uk
4 Learning and Teaching Research Group, Sri Lanka Technological Campus, Padukka 10500, Sri Lanka;
nandag@sltc.ac.lk
* Correspondence: kelum.gamage@glasgow.ac.uk




Received: 30 September 2020; Accepted: 11 November 2020; Published: 1 December 2020


Abstract: COVID-19, caused by a member of the coronavirus family of viruses, has spread to
most countries around the world since it was first recorded in humans in China in late 2019.
Closing universities and cancelling all face-to-face activities have become a COVID-19 inevitable
reality in many parts of the world. Its impact on university programs, particularly to maintain
academic standards and quality assurance procedures, has become significantly more challenging and
complex. New ways of working digitally, to minimize disruption to daily operations, have also led to
enormous anxiety and uncertainty within the student population, and meeting students’ expectations
has also become significantly more difficult. This paper reviews actions taken by universities to
safeguard high academic standards and quality assurance procedures during this time and appraise
the challenges and impacts on students’ academic performance.

Keywords: assessment of learning outcomes; internal quality assurance; external quality assurance;
assessment moderation; accreditation

1. Introduction
High academic standards are essential to a university bringing out high-quality research and
teaching outcomes, leading to delivery of high-quality graduates. The purpose of maintaining high
academic standards can be manifold—not only to meet standards set by the national education standard
governing body or professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSBR) but to provide confidence to
convey that the quality of education meets the current and future competencies and needs of the wider
society. According to Anderson et al. (2000), quality assurance is “the means by which an institution
is able to confirm that the standards (of teaching and learning), set by the institution itself or other
awarding bodies, are being maintained and enhanced” [1]. Consequently, quality assurance (QA)
has an important role in monitoring an institution’s own processes and performance of achievements,
whereby it serves in a consistent application and continuous improvement of processes and reduces
the scope for variability. Furthermore, the concepts of quality and standards are interconnected
and it is difficult to discuss standards without discussing quality, and vice versa. Quality in higher
education is considered in a broad range of inter-related activities, such as curriculum, teaching,
student learning, assessment, student experience, student selectivity and research [2]. Because of this
multifaceted nature of quality, QA in higher education institutions (HEIs) adopts different approaches

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032; doi:10.3390/su122310032 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 2 of 14

and procedures. The standards-based approach assesses universities against a set of pre-determined
standards, which are often externally developed. The fit-for-purpose approach is used to analyze
performance against the internally set goals and missions of the HEI itself. The minimum requirement
approach is used to ensure universities fulfil minimum standards, often adopted for compliance
purposes [3].
One of the main aims of quality assurance is to identify whether a particular institution
fulfils the baseline of the national and/or quality standards set for the higher education institution
operations [4,5]. Based on the positive results from quality audits that a higher education institution
received, they provide the institution with an “authorization” to continue its work. The results of the
auditing can be applied, for example, in the marketing of the programs, particularly to attract the best
students, as well as in preparing applications for research and development funding. It also allows
staff to compare their own university to others on a qualitative scale [6].
Quality assurance procedures can serve two major purposes: accountability and improvement.
Quality procedures for accountability are based on criteria aimed at strengthening external insight and
control, set by external authorities. Quality assurance for accountability purposes indicates the use
of a summative approach, with the possibility of taking corrective actions by an external authority,
if necessary. Quality assurance for improvement purposes has a formative approach—the focus is on
improving quality instead of control [7].
Universities, being public institutions, have a major responsibility to maintain quality and
standards. However, periodic external reviews by an independent agency will provide further
credibility to the public and satisfy social accountability. Thus, external quality assurance is considered
as an effective way of safeguarding the quality of delivery and standards of awards in higher education
while facilitating quality improvement [8]. There can be various agencies inspecting quality in HEIs,
such as government bodies (ministries or federal agencies) or autonomous agencies established either
by the government or the HEIs themselves [7].
Institutional review analyses and tests the effectiveness of an institution’s processes, for managing
and assuring the quality of academic activities undertaken by the HEI. It evaluates the extent to
which internal quality assurance schemes can be relied upon to maintain the quality of provision
of educational programs over time. The overall purpose of an institutional review is to achieve
accountability for quality and standards by using a peer review process to promote the sharing of good
practices and to facilitate continuous improvement. On the other hand, a Subject/Program review
assesses the quality of the student learning experience at the programme level [9].
The designs of higher education quality assurance systems in various countries are influenced
by the higher education systems, traditional culture and social backgrounds in that country.
Having clearly defined and harmonious relationships of responsibility, rights and interests between
various stakeholders in quality assurance is the pre-condition for quality assurance mechanisms to
effectively run in these countries [10]. For example, in the UK, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
has developed a quality code for higher education, where it enables universities and colleges to
understand the expectations of them (see the key elements in Figure 1). Particularly, it helps HEIs to
identify quality code as a reference point to protect public and student interests, championing UK
higher education’s world-leading reputation for quality [11].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 3 of 14
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Elementsofofthe
Elements thequality
quality code
code as
as highlighted
highlightedby
bythe
theQuality
QualityAssurance
AssuranceAgency (QAA),
Agency UK UK
(QAA), [11].[11].

Higher
Higher education
education policiesrelated
policies relatedtotoquality
quality assurance
assurance are are instigated
instigatedininmanymanycountries
countries toto
ensure
ensure
the provision of high-quality education, university accountability and
the provision of high-quality education, university accountability and transparency in using transparency in using public
public
funding
funding and
and meeting
meeting theneeds
the needsofofthethediverse
diversestakeholders
stakeholders [12].[12]. Every
Everyuniversity
universityororhigher
higher education
education
institution
institution is is dedicatedtotoa apolicy
dedicated policyofofself-evaluation
self-evaluation of of all
all its
its programs,
programs,procedures,
procedures,services
services andand
administrative mechanisms on a regular basis, which encompasses a quality self-assessment. This is
administrative mechanisms on a regular basis, which encompasses a quality self-assessment. This is
because the responsibility for quality and standards in higher education primarily exists within the
because the responsibility for quality and standards in higher education primarily exists within the
university itself, rather than outside of it [9].
university itself, rather than outside of it [9].
The novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19, has caused massive disruption to the daily life of
The novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19, has caused massive disruption to the daily
humans around the world. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared
life of humans around the world. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO)
COVID-19 to be a global pandemic, showing how widely the virus has spread across the world since
declared
its firstCOVID-19
emergencetoinbeWuhan,
a globalChina,
pandemic,
in late showing
2019 [13].howFor widely the virusperiod,
an indefinite has spread acrossisthe
COVID-19
world since itstofirst
continuing emergence
raise in Wuhan,
health concerns China,
and this will in late 2019
continue to [13]. For an
challenge manyindefinite
aspectsperiod, COVID-19
in international
is continuing to raise health concerns and this will continue to challenge many
higher education as well. As such, the scale of the impact of this pandemic indicates that many HEIs aspects in international
higher
neededucation
to adapt and as well. As the
mitigate such, the scale of the impact of this pandemic indicates that many HEIs
consequences.
need toIn adapt
whatand maymitigate
be termedtheasconsequences.
a “forced stop”, most countries followed a “lockdown” procedure to
In what
curtail humanmay movement.
be termed as a “forced stop”,
Consequently, most countries
all face-to-face followed
activities werea “lockdown” procedure
severely restricted, and to
curtail humanhave
universities movement.
had to closeConsequently,
down abruptly to allensure
face-to-face
that theactivities
health andwere safetyseverely restricted,
of their staff and
and students are nothave
universities compromised.
had to close According
down to UNESCO,
abruptly it is estimated
to ensure that the that 1.58 billion
health learners
and safety of are
their
offand
staff schools,
studentswhicharerepresents 91.3% of total
not compromised. enrolled
According to learners
UNESCO, in it
theis world [14]. that
estimated A survey on
1.58 billion
international
learners student which
are off schools, recruitment has also
represents 91.3%shown thatenrolled
of total an overwhelming
learners in number
the world of [14].
prospective
A survey
students had been impacted by this crisis, causing a change their plans
on international student recruitment has also shown that an overwhelming number of prospective as a result. Most of the
respondents have primarily chosen to defer their studies until the following
students had been impacted by this crisis, causing a change their plans as a result. Most of the year [15].
Manyhave
respondents universities usechosen
primarily the conventional education
to defer their studies system thatfollowing
until the requires the physical
year [15]. presence of
students and teachers, and therefore, many universities were not
Many universities use the conventional education system that requires the physical fully prepared to face apresence
crisis of of
such magnitude. Many students have raised issues about travel restrictions, university closure,
students and teachers, and therefore, many universities were not fully prepared to face a crisis of such
cancelling of flights, problems in obtaining scholarship interviews, economic collapses, visa
magnitude. Many students have raised issues about travel restrictions, university closure, cancelling of
applications or language tests, as well exam postponements or cancellations apart from the apparent
flights, problems in obtaining scholarship interviews, economic collapses, visa applications or language
health concerns [16]. So, at times of crisis, universities must have risk management strategies to
tests, as well exam postponements or cancellations apart from the apparent health concerns [16].
maintain their quality and accountability. This paper explores the challenges that universities have
So,encountered
at times of crisis, universities
as a result of the must have and
pandemic risk discusses
management theirstrategies
approaches to maintain
to retain their
high quality
academic and
accountability. This paper explores the challenges that
standards and quality assurance procedures without compromising them.universities have encountered as a result of the
pandemic and discusses their approaches to retain high academic standards and quality assurance
procedures without compromising them.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 4 of 14

2. Overview of Academic Standards

2.1. UK Scenario
In the UK, before 1992, the primary means of securing quality assurance in universities was
dependent upon the system of external examiners. This was a form of peer review with external
examiners with the purpose to sustain comparability in degree classifications, and the quality of the
teaching and learning process was considered secondary [17]. The Council for National Academic
Awards (CNAA) was a national body created in 1964 to approve the degree programs of public sector
institutions. Later, with the creation of the Academic Audit Unit (AAU), a more demanding system of
quality evaluation was required than that provided by the visits and reports of external examiners.
The reviews of the AAU were based on activities of multiple stages, where institutions were required to
submit a package of documentation, after which auditors visited the institution to explore issues raised
by the documentation and to verify its content. Next, a report was drafted and sent to the institution
for comments, which was then followed by a final report [17].
Currently, the quality agenda in England is in a transitional period, with the Quality Assurance
Agency (QAA) changing its focus and moving towards quality enhancement. The key components
include institutional audit, responsibility for quality at the institutional level and embracing quality
enhancement as a cause worthy of promotion rather than as a component of quality assurance while
placing more information about the institutional quality and quality procedures in the public domain.
The quality assurance process undertaken by various institutions over time in the UK focused
on both institutional audit and departmental inspection. The methodologies involved collection
and analysis of institutional data, observation of teaching and interaction with course teams,
external examiners, students, alumni and employers etc. Finally, the outcomes of these procedures
came out as evaluations (both qualitative and quantitative) and reports for use either internally or
publicly [17].

2.2. Sri Lanka Scenario

In Sri Lanka (SL), quality assurance is another important area of higher education reforms.
Since the late 1970s, policymakers have been debating about the high rate of graduate unemployment
and the low quality of graduate output. Quality assurance and accreditation is a recent development
in Sri Lanka, carried out by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Council (QAAC), established in
2005 under the World Bank’s Improving Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education (IRQUE)
project, implemented during 2003–2009. This project provided training, both locally and overseas,
for administrative staff of public universities [18]. The first cycle of Institutional and Subject Review was
conducted using the Quality Assurance Handbook for Sri Lankan Universities under the administration
of the QAA unit of the University Grants Commission (UGC) [9].
Finally, the issue of quality assurance was addressed with the formation of the QAAC in 2005,
with funding from the IRQUE project. This led to several new practices, such as the development of
subject benchmark statements, subject reviews, external reviews and institutional reviews. The UGC,
having recognized the significance of maintaining a good quality of academic output, established the
National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Council (NQAAC) as a separate division under its own
Secretariat [18].
The main components of this SL QA system are listed below [9]:

1. Sri Lanka Qualification Framework.

2. Subject Benchmarking.
3. Codes of Practice.
4. External Quality Assurance.
5. Internal Quality Assurance.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 5 of 14

2.3. China Scenario

The history of QA in HE in China dates back to the 1980s and has expanded progressively in the
past few decades. The Chinese government started to introduce QA to HE to ensure education quality
in different types of HEIs after the shift of university governance from direct control to supervision
combined with the emergence of various new university programs in China [3]. Different approaches
of QA were put together to establish a comprehensive framework. The Ministry of Education (MoE)
in China combined three quality assessment schemes, quality accreditation, excellence assessment and
random assessment, and launched a new project, the Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education,
in 2002. This evaluation consists of three stages: self-examination, expert visit and evaluation and
discussion and dissemination of the evaluation results [10].
In undergraduate teaching, evaluation key aspects, such as mission, staff, equipment,
program establishment and reform, management, learning environment and outcomes, are inspected
on a 5-year rolling cycle at the institutional level. Universities are expected to assess their performance
according to the above indicators and submit a report on their achievements, issues and suggestions
for improvement. However, the absence of student opinion on these criteria has made it difficult to
examine how these QA strategies affect the actual learning experience [3].

2.4. New Zealand Scenario

In New Zealand, the quality assurance process is overseen by the Academic Quality Agency for
New Zealand Universities (AQA), which focuses on audit cycles on certain constituents of academic
quality and the internal processes for monitoring and improving upon them. After a self-study and
peer review, the AQA publishes a report with references for improvement, and institutions are held
accountable for implementing development plans through progress reports and follow-up reviews [19].
A comprehensive QA framework involves inspection into a number of areas, including mission and
purpose, faculty output, instruction, library, laboratory and other physical facilities, administration,
etc. [3].

2.5. Australia Scenario

Until the 1980s, individual Australian universities were responsible for the development and
implementation of quality assurance mechanisms [20]. A review paper from Shah et al. [12] provides a
brief history of quality assurance and its evolution in higher education in Australia. Major quality
assurance policy in HE initiatives were implemented in 1990s, including Higher Education: Quality and
Diversity in the 1990s, to review the discipline approach to quality assurance, a committee for quality
assurance in higher education between 1993 and 1995 to review practices and outcomes of public
universities and allocation of Quality Assurance and Enhancement operating grants, as well as
implementation of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). Further policies were implemented
in 2000, namely National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes and the Education Service
for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act. At the same time, the external agency Australian Universities
Quality Agency (AUQA) was formed.
The current Australian higher education quality assurance framework is composed of
internal quality management systems (strategic planning, use of key performance indicators,
benchmarking, reviews of programs, faculties, schools, students and staff surveys, peer reviews
schemes, external examiners, internal moderations, etc.); quality audits by AUQA since 2002,
which have resulted in the use of various quality cycles (plan, implement, review and improve
approach); government monitoring (performance data and benchmarking with comparable institutions);
performance-based funding.
As a result, Australian universities have built an international reputation and good
international rankings.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 6 of 14

3. Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Assessment Regulations/Grading

Indeed, the outbreak of COVID-19 fundamentally altered the global higher education landscape
in 2020. In the space of a few months, it has had a penetrating impact on international student flows,
forced HEIs to rethink the use and abilities of online learning platforms and had an impact on a range
of other elements within the higher education sector. So, it is clear that switching at least some of
the scheduled courses online is the most effective and easily achieved short-term strategy. However,
this will also lead to thinking about new ways of assessments and grading for the affected students.
Universities around the world have been forced to significantly restructure assessments. As part
of this, some have opted to assess learning outcomes through open-book examinations. To maintain
standards, institutions should focus on assessing the same learning outcomes, but this is challenging
to achieve. A recent study published by Eurboonyanun et al. [21] compared online medical surgery
clerkship assessment scores to the traditional written examinations and concluded that the online
open-book examination had a significantly higher mean scores. Although a limited study, this implies
that new approaches regarding grading and standard setting are needed to assess long-term knowledge
retention and application.
Most HEIs seem to be following a “no detriment” policy. A “no detriment” policy seeks to
mitigate against the impact of a set of circumstances by ensuring that an individual is not unfairly
disadvantaged by a requirement to change rules or regulations, in session. Thus, for many higher
education institutes, “no detriment” means students are guaranteed that their final grade will be no
lower than their average academic performance in advance of the pandemic [22]. For example, in some
instances, students will not have to sit all of the originally scheduled assessments, so their academic
performance to date is being used to determine their grades. In other cases, there will be changes
to the assessments—reducing the number or the format of assessments. However, these policies are
customary to a particular HEI depending on their student population, academic calendar, pedagogical
approaches, curriculum content and assessment systems [22]. The key element here is that a different
design of assessment is adopted to achieve the same objective of grading student performance [23].
While highlighting the responsibility of HEIs to protect the academic standard of the qualifications
they award, they also have a duty to protect their students’ interests in the exceptional situations
created by the global pandemic. So, by introducing a “no detriment” (or similar) method, the purpose
is to ensure that students are free to focus on their learning and realize their academic goals rather than
worrying about risks to their academic outcomes due to problems beyond their control [24].
It is important to note that these measures for current students must not provide undue advantages
compared to their peers in previous years and also that they must not be disadvantaged in the future,
ensuring that their degree classifications are as reliable as previously.
As such, COVID-19 has caused universities to change their forms of assessment and grading
systems drastically. Such approaches include changing the credit volume or workload that students are
required to complete to be granted a qualification, providing them only with pass/fail instead of a grade,
making minor amendments to allow students to progress and achieve the “missing” learning objectives
later, allow reattempts to failed students without an academic penalty or evidence of exceptional
circumstances, allowing students to progress by considering their average grades across the required
credits to reach a pass of 40%, alternative assessment formats (e.g., “open-book exams”), calculating a
final module grade if all assessments cannot be completed provided that the learning outcomes had
been achieved from the already-completed assessment(s) by the student and, finally, in extreme cases,
making changes to the degree algorithms and classification profiles [22,25].
Although there are many instances where these approaches could be successfully (at least to a great
extent) implemented, for subject areas such as clinical medicine, performing arts and science-based
disciplines, which involve laboratory and field activities—which require psychomotor skills and
competence in using or handling equipment—this will not be pragmatic enough, since the learning
outcomes cannot be met without in-house training. Further, it must be highlighted that any of these
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 7 of 14

changes must be effectively communicated to the students, and it is also important that the opinions of
students must also be considered before implementing such changes.
Some typical examples [26]:
At Western Sydney University, Australia, the assessments will be graded as previously using the
traditional approach, but students will have the option of choosing to have the final passing grade
converted to a non-graded pass. These non-graded passes would not count towards the students’
final grade point average. Similarly, the University of Melbourne has decided to retain its usual
percentage marks for courses undertaken by students this semester but has noted that students’ grade
percentage distributions will be examined to evaluate whether universal changes to the calculation of
grades are necessary. However, the University of Sydney has introduced three new grade options,
Discontinued (DC), Result Incomplete (RI) or UC Grade, when a unit of study follows on to another
and a series of mark adjustments by adopting a “no-disadvantage assessment” position, which they
recognize as a transparent, just and supporting academic progression.
There is also a “special consideration” situation identified by most universities in order to address
issues where students experience short-term circumstances, e.g., illness, injury or misadventure,
which can substantially affect their preparation or performance in an assessment. In such instances,
the students can either complete a “declaration form” with any available supporting evidence so that
they will not be disadvantaged due to events beyond their control. In addition, special attention is also
been given for instances such as students with disabilities and cases where students act as caretakers
of persons affected by COVID-19 within the family, or students working in the healthcare system.

4. Internal Quality Assurance

4.1. Internal Moderation

According to the definition of the Internal Quality Assurance Manual for Sri Lankan Universities [8],
internal quality assurance refers to “internal processes that an institution has developed in order
to monitor and improve the quality of their students’ learning experience and ensure achievement
of established goals, objectives and standards”. This shows that this needs to be a continuous,
ongoing process where everyone working in an institution must take responsibility to incorporate it
into their day-to-day, activities. Therefore, internal QA can be considered as the keystone of QA in
higher education.
Areas that are considered of particular importance in internal quality assurance include policy
and procedures for higher education; approval, monitoring and periodic review of programs and
awards; assessment of students; quality assurance of teaching staff; learning resources and student
support; information systems; public information [27].
Due to COVID-19, new challenges have led universities to rethink their QA procedures.
According to a recent survey, with respect to crisis management, most universities have highlighted
the importance of the following factors [16]:

• Online learning.
• International coordination and collaboration.
• Strong university leadership.
• Proactive, preventative measures.
• Flexibility for assessment deadlines and exams.
• Stricter sanitation initiatives.
• Clear communication from university leadership and administrators.

Due to COVID-19, there is a chance that these aspects must also be considered into evaluation
criteria during the review process.
An important part of QA involves learning about the student experience, but now,
obtaining student feedback is compromised due to social distancing, as are organized site visits.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 8 of 14

Preparation of reports needs data collection and finding suitable stakeholders to collect, analyze/review
and interpret data is needed. Using new software/cloud and web-based platforms and technology
to meet online, add data online or simply to defer until things turn normal or even in extreme cases,
QA procedures can be judged by looking at achievements and performances in the recent past.
The need to use electronic and online cloud-based platforms is stressed. With holding committee
meetings via Zoom or Teams, both web conferencing apps, accessibility (internet or compatible
computer technology) and technical literacy are some limitations that need to be addressed, as well as
difficulties in coming together as groups for committee discussions and getting used to working while
at home (e.g., finding quiet, dedicated office spaces at home).
Finding data or answering questions in QA processes is easy (especially in pandemic situations)
if there is a management information system (MIS) and electronic databases, but in countries such
as Sri Lanka, where they are implemented at low levels in most universities, it will be very difficult,
as these data must be physically accessed by looking at hard copies (paper-based records).
Performing internal quality audits was initially the QA system of universities, even in the
UK. Preparation of internal quality reports involved the participation of many personnel at various
hierarchies of the university (faculty, departments, administrative, etc.). Due to the COVID-19 scenario,
such activities are limited or must be carried out while obeying the social distancing health guidelines.

4.2. External Quality Assurance

As mentioned earlier, internal quality assurance is supported by periodic external review. The two
processes have to be harmonized for maximum benefit. External quality assurance (EQA) or review is
an important component of the QA framework. Its main aims are to safeguard standards of awards
and quality of delivery in higher education; to identify good practices; to facilitate continuous quality
improvement; to inculcate the quality culture into the higher education system [9]. HEIs must make a
deliberate effort to address any shortcomings of these internal and external reviews and implement
any other suggestions and recommendations [28].
External examiners are integral to a system of evaluation as they focus more on professional and
disciplinary values rather than the institutional authority to endure quality in higher education [17].
According to European standards, it is recommended that external quality assurance procedures
should take into account the effectiveness of such internal quality assurance processes [7]. From this,
it is seen that this external review is now a critical element that has become an internationally accepted
aspect of quality assurance [29]. Identification of the criteria used for external quality assurance can
enlighten institutions in helping to identify which internal processes are working well and those that
need to be strengthened further.
The main features of EQA irrespective of the unit of assessment are self-evaluation by the
institution/programme, peer review including a review visit and perusal of evidence culminating in a
review report with judgement and commentary [9,29].
In the preparation phase, the institution will have to begin compiling its self-evaluation document
several months before the visit and submit it in advance to the review team. At the other end, the review
team will meet either to fully understand the document or to plan their detailed inquiries to identify
lines of inquiry. They will also identify individuals and groups they wish to meet during the visit.
In the second phase, the review team will visit to examine and verify the claims in the university’s
self-evaluation. This will include an evaluation with the university of any specific concerns arising
from reviews done before the visit, gathering further evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the
institution’s arrangements for the management of quality and standards and, finally, assessing the
extent to which recommendations and disparagements made by the previous reviews have been
addressed. The outcome of the institutional review is a published report. This report will give an
overall finding on the reviewer’s evaluation of the performance of the institution to provide a reference
point to support and guide staff in their continuing quality assurance activities [9,29].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 9 of 14

The review team will also consult the documentation provided by the institution. The aim is to
reflect on evidence provided by the institution and to focus on discussions with staff and students to
get a clear picture of the institution’s processes in operation. Most evidence for review will come from
information and documentation used by the institution itself. Therefore, the self-evaluation report
(SER) of the university becomes a key document both for itself and the review team. A careful and
succinct SER, while helping the university to recognize its own strengths and weaknesses, also helps
the review team to plan its review process more effectively and efficiently [9,28].
The review visit, under normal circumstances, takes up to five days, depending on the number of
sites, diversity of provision and clarity and depth of the university’s self-evaluation report. The visits
usually conclude with a meeting with the Vice Chancellor and senior staff.
Due to COVID-19, there are new concerns with students regarding safety at the HEI, their future
studies, learning resources and student support, assessments, etc., which have to be addressed in
the report. For HEIs freshly participating in QA activities, it is best to defer the activities, as the
self-evaluation report needs lots of information collection and analysis. There will also be implications
in how to hold training sessions for preparing reports, training for evaluations, scheduling meetings,
adherence to previous quality parameters, or perhaps changing them, and the effectiveness of the
university’s/HEI’s processes.
The Beijing Institute of Technology introduced a “higher education monitoring evaluation”, a new
higher education quality assessment technology that uses modern information technology to frequently
collect relevant data and visually present the status of higher education, providing an objective basis
for value judgments and scientific decision-making [10]. This monitoring evaluation is a data-intensive
evaluation, aiming to provide and promote feedback for continuous quality improvement, to follow
the systematic change of higher education for scientific decision-making and to deliver user-oriented
information service for diverse value judgments. The technology of higher education monitoring
evaluation includes data collection and consolidation, data mining and analysis and data visualization.
Accreditation is a process where an institution’s services and operations are examined by an
external accrediting agency to determine if applicable standards are met. If they are met, the institution
receives accreditation. Accreditation creates confidence and trust in the quality of the HEI and
its programs and awards students, parents, prospective employers and the general public while
giving international recognition [9,28]. It serves as a sign of the HEI’s adequacy in five aspects,
including academic quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness, student protection and
transparency [9]. One of the most important benefits of program accreditation is recognition at the
international level. This can be applied in international marketing of degree programs as well as in
international collaboration—for example, in the double-degree cooperation with international partner
higher education institutions [6].
Relevant professional accreditation bodies usually prescribe the number of hours for laboratory
or field-based activities in a degree. Delivery of these activities can be jeopardized due to social
distancing health guidelines. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for HEIs to enter into dialogue
with professional bodies to adjust delivery and assessment approaches. According to the COVID-19
guidance on academic standards published by QAA [30], some HEIs have reported some resistance to
certain models, but many have worked closely with HEIs and supported them in their efforts.
Universities aim to maintain overall standards and to mitigate negative impacts on the students’
overall outcomes by making various adjustments, including the use of video demonstrations, virtual labs
software, artificial intelligence, etc. However, the implementation of these adjustments is limited due to
the very short notice under which universities are also required to protect the health, welfare and safety
of students and staff or to follow the advice of local or national authorities. Therefore, the development
of a robust provision to deliver remote access to laboratories and observatories is a huge challenge for
most universities, requiring time, effort and considerable investments.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 10 of 14

5. Academic Integrity
The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) defines Academic Integrity as
‘a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect,
responsibility, and courage [31]. From these values flow principles of behaviour that enable academic
communities to translate ideals to action’. As such, academic integrity is a concept which, on one
hand, protects the quality of the student learning experience, to value their academic achievements,
and, on the other hand, provides assurance and reputation for the higher education institutions for
the programs offered. Hence, it can be understood that sustaining academic integrity has a two-way
approach: (1) prevent and act against academic misconduct and (2) popularize good practices [31].
It is important to note that academic integrity must be maintained at all times, irrespective of global
pandemics; the only thing is that the measures to secure it will depend on how the learning outcomes
of a programme are assessed by the higher education institution. It is the responsibility of the higher
education institution to remind students of the policies already put in place on academic integrity and
highlight that these continue to apply even in the current circumstances.
As a consequence of COVID-19, higher education institutions have had to adjust their assessment
practices to suit online delivery. In doing so, it must be ensured that these practices are robust,
safeguarding against academic misconduct but equally ensuring fairness for students who have had to
sit for university assessments during challenging circumstances.
All stakeholders of the academic community (e.g., academia, students, professional services,
administration and the management) need to be aware of policies, procedures, regulations, expectations
and sanctions, as well as to be supported to understand what academic practices are considered as
acceptable or not.
Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that students are aware of the potential consequences if they
are caught cheating. In order to convey this effectively, discussing academic misconduct with students
and the risks involved will help them understand the long-term and ethical benefits of the genuineness
of their work [32]. Some further actions involve developing internal networks of academic integrity
support or submitting an “Academic Integrity Honesty Statement” or equivalent for students before
they sit for online exams to make them personally responsible by putting their signature [33].

5.1. How to Uphold Academic Integrity in Online Delivery: Course/Lab/Assessment Design

In the UK, for example, as suggested by QAA guidelines/National Forum Enhancement Theme,
some actions include preparing students with skills, such as academic writing and referencing
skills, necessary to succeed in their assessments; frameworks and structures to keep students on
track; moderation of peer learning forums and other student-friendly channels to communicate
university support; proper dealing with cases of misconduct; consider accessibility to all students
(hardware/software requirements, assessment submission processes, logistical issues, etc.) in using
technology and engaging with online assessment tools [34].

5.2. Use of Technology: Plagiarism Checker, Virtual Invigilation

The use of technology to curb this issue is seen as a potential solution in the ever-evolving
methods of compromising academic honesty and integrity. Apart from blocking access to “essay mills”
and disrupting their advertising tactics on university IT systems, modifying online assessments is also
important to discourage the students from cheating [35].
Online proctoring services, for example (which use a combination of microphone, webcam,
speakers, screen-sharing, etc.), can be used to supervise remote exams. For these purposes, a specialist
online testing service (such as ProctorU) can be utilized, which operates under multi-jurisdictional
privacy and security regulations while ensuring that student privacy and security is safeguarded
during online invigilation [36]. It is worth mentioning, here, the challenges related to the large-scale
move to online assessments, e.g., cost, capability, risks, etc.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 11 of 14

In the context of essays and other written assignments, modifying assessments to allow students
to demonstrate their skills (combining straight answer questions with brief explanations or reasoning)
can also help them to develop deep learning abilities [35]. Use of software (plagiarism checking,
text matching, stylometric and linguistic analytics, etc.) is also a recommended technique [29].
If written assignments can be completed in a student’s own time, students can be provided with early
drafts or “checkpoints” as these assignments are more prone to cheating [34]. This “checkpoints”
or (“advanced drafts”) method can be used for assessing group activities as well. Additionally,
calling students after submission of assignments for a brief online ‘viva’ to check their understanding
and authenticity of the work and comparing previous student performances to what has been obtained
via online assessments to determine whether it keeps with expectations can also help in maintaining the
integrity of written essays [25]. For individual or group performances (performance arts such as music,
dance, drama, etc.), alternative assessments, such as video/audio recordings, recitals, online portfolios
and virtual studios, and written assessments, such as essays, reflective blogs, etc., can be used [37].
However, these assessments must, in one way, be achievable for students at home while also being
assessable for home-working teachers/markers.

6. Safety
The COVID-19 situation has forced HEIs to amend existing processes in order to open campuses
for students and staff following public health advice and government rules on social distancing. This is
of particular importance for programs involving heavy elements of practical work. This academic year,
many universities have adopted a blended approach that combines both online and on-campus teaching.
Usually, on-campus teaching activities involve tutorials and practicals, while large-scale lectures are
being delivered using online technology. Another interesting approach is to use a dual-mode system
that delivers material simultaneously for on-campus face-to-face students and off-campus online
students. The Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry Department at Aston University has
recently adopted dual-mode teaching for practicals and workshops, providing students with additional
flexibility to switch between the face-to-face and online modes but also allowing adequate social
distancing on campus.
It is clear that university programs have been adapting their teaching settings and contexts
due to the safety requirements imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Universities UK
has published a list of principles for individual universities to deliver their teaching safely and in
line with guidance from governments, public health advice and health and safety legislation [38].
These include health, safety and wellbeing, changes to university layout and infrastructure, reviews of
teaching, learning and assessment, review of the welfare and mental health needs of students and staff,
support for international students and staff, review of cleaning protocols and risk assessments as well
as engagement with the wider community, such as trade unions, councils and other community groups.
To conclude, health guidelines have become a new part of the teaching, learning and assessment
planning, placing themselves as a central part of quality assurance in HEIs.

7. Conclusions
Quality assurance exercises need a good set of information on pre-determined criteria and
standards to sustain quality judgments. An internal quality assurance procedure with the preparation
of a self-assessment report is a core element of the external quality assurance process. Identification
of the criteria used for external quality assurance can inform institutions of what they need to focus
on for developing and strengthening their internal quality assurance processes. Due to COVID-19,
new challenges have led universities to rethink their IQA and EQA procedures, struggling to navigate
this crisis while maintaining consistent course delivery, ensuring strong student recruitment and
providing clear communication to staff and students.
As such, the scale of the impact of this pandemic has forced many HEIs to adapt and take
effective actions to mitigate the undue consequences of crises. This paper highlights several important
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 12 of 14

challenges to safeguard high academic standards. Assessments have been moved to open-book
examinations in order to assess learning outcomes, which brings the need for different grading and
standard settings, particularly for programs with heavy practical components. Robust provision and
delivery of remote access to laboratories and observatories is of utmost importance for both students’
learning and quality assurance processes, but their development requires time, effort and considerable
investments. Issues related to academic integrity have also been addressed, namely the importance of
academic writing and referencing training, online proctoring services and alternative assessments,
such as “check-points” and vivas.
Finally, the safety of students and staff and their well-being will be central to addressing the
highlighted issues. So, there is a new question to quality assurance in higher education: Will health
guidelines become a new part of QA for the good of humankind in pandemic situations?

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.A.A.G.; methodology, K.A.A.G. and R.G.G.R.P.; formal analysis,
R.G.G.R.P.; investigation, R.G.G.R.P.; resources, N.G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G.G.R.P., K.A.A.G.
and V.N.-V.; writing—review and editing, K.A.A.G. and V.N.-V.; supervision, K.A.A.G.; project administration,
K.A.A.G. and N.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partly funded by seed funding from Sri Lanka Technological Campus, Sri Lanka.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Anderson, D.; Johnson, R.; Milligan, B. Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Australian Higher Education:
An Assessment of Australian and International Practice, 1st ed.; AusInfo: Canberra, Australia, 2000.
2. Thompson-Whiteside, S. Assessing academic standards in Australian higher education. In Tertiary
Education Policy in Australia, 1st ed.; Marginson, S., Ed.; Centre for the Study of Higher Education,
University of Melbourne: Melbourne, Australia, 2013; Chapter 5; pp. 39–48.
3. Wang, L. Quality assurance in higher education in China: Control, accountability and freedom. Policy Soc.
2014, 33, 253–262. [CrossRef]
4. Ellis, R. Quality assurance for university teaching: Issues and approaches. In Quality Assurance for University
Teaching, 1st ed.; Ellis, R., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: Bristol, UK; pp. 3–15.
5. Ellis, R. Quality assurance for university teaching. In Handbook of Quality Assurance for University Teaching,
1st ed.; Ellis, R., Hogard, E., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK; pp. 3–18.
6. Bejan, S.A.; Janatuinen, T.; Jurvelin, J.; Klöpping, S.; Malinen, H.; Minke, B.; Vacareanu, R. Quality assurance
and its impact from higher education institutions’ perspectives: Methodological approaches, experiences
and expectations. Qual. High. Educ. 2015, 21, 343–371. [CrossRef]
7. Kis, V. Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature
Review on Potential Effects. OECD (2005), Thematic Review of Tertiary Education. Available online:
http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/38006910.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2020).
8. Coomaraswamy, U.; Jayatilleke, G.; Abeygunawardena, H. Manual for Quality Assurance of External Degree
Programmes and Extension Courses Offered by Universities, 1st ed.; University Grants Commission: Colombo,
Sri Lanka, 2014; Chapter 4; pp. 57–70.
9. Warnasuriya, N.; Coomaraswamy, U.; de Silva, N.; Nandadeva, B.D.; Abeygunawardena, H. Higher education
for the twenty first century (HETC) project ministry of higher education and research. In Manual for Institutional
Review of Sri Lankan Universities and Higher Education Institutions, 1st ed.; Sri Lanka & University Grants
Commission: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2015; Chapter 2; pp. 21–27.
10. Shuiyun, L. External Higher Education Quality Assurance System in China, Chinese Education & Society.
Chin. Educ. Soc. 2016, 49, 1–6.
11. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The Revised UK Quality Code for Higher Education; UK Standing Committee
for Quality Assessment: Gloucester, UK, 2018.
12. Shah, M.; Nair, S.; Wilson, M. Quality assurance in Australian higher education: Historical and future
development. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2011, 12, 475–483. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 13 of 14

13. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on
COVID-19—11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-
s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
14. UNESCO. Education: From Disruption to Recovery. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/
educationresponse (accessed on 28 September 2020).
15. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. How COVID-19 is Impacting Prospective International Students across the Globe.
Available online: https://www.qs.com/portfolio-items/how-covid-19-is-impacting-prospective-international-
students-across-the-globe/ (accessed on 28 September 2020).
16. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. The Impact of the Coronavirus on Global Higher Education.
Available online: https://www.qs.com/portfolio-items/the-impact-of-the-coronavirus-on-global-higher-
education/ (accessed on 28 September 2020).
17. Filippakou, O.; Tapper, T. Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Thinking beyond the English Experience.
High. Educ. Policy 2007, 20, 339–360. [CrossRef]
18. Asian Development Bank. Innovative Strategies for Accelerated Human Resource Development in South Asia,
1st ed.; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2016; pp. 27–53.
19. Brown, J.; Kurzweil, M.; Pritchett, W. Quality Assurance in U.S. Higher Education—The Current Landscape and
Principles for Reform, 1st ed.; Ithaka: New York City, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 23–26.
20. Mikol, M. Quality Assurance in Australian Higher Education: A Case Study of the University of Western Sydney
(Nepean); University of Western Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 1996.
21. Eurboonyanun, C.; Wittayapairoch, J.; Aphinives, P.; Petrusa, E.; Gee, D.W.; Phitayakorn, R. Adaptation to
Open-Book Online Examination during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Surg. Educ. 2020, in press.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. ‘No Detriment’ Policies: An Overview.
2020. Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/no-detriment-policies-an-overview.pdf
(accessed on 28 September 2020).
23. University College Dublin. Guidance for Designing Alternative Assessment Methods: COVID 19 Contingency
Planning. 2020. Available online: https://www.ucd.ie/teaching/t4media/alternative_assessment_methods.pdf
(accessed on 28 September 2020).
24. T&L National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Available online: https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/wp-content/uploads/Assessment-methods-resource-
for-publication-final.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2020).
25. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. COVID-19: Thematic Guidance—Securing Academic
Standards and Supporting Student Achievement. 2020. Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/
docs/qaa/guidance/covid-19-thematic-guidance-academic-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=cbcccd81_6 (accessed on
28 September 2020).
26. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. International Examples of Practice in Response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview. 2020. Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/
international-examples-of-practice-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=b3aecd81_2 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
27. European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). Report on Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, 3rd ed.; European Association for Quality Assurance
in Higher Education: Helsinki, Finland, 2009; pp. 16–19.
28. Coomaraswamy, U.; Abeygunawardena, H. Quality assurance and accreditation of undergraduate and
postgraduate degree programmes. In Proceedings of the Re-creating and Re-positioning of Sri Lankan Universities
to meet Emerging Opportunities and Challenges in a Globalized Environment, Kalutara, Sri Lanka, 18–19 June 2012;
Senaratne, R., Sivasegaram, S., Eds.; University Grants Commission and Ministry of Higher Education:
Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2012; pp. 181–200.
29. Martin, M.; Stella, A. Conducting the Process of External Quality Assurance, 1st ed.; International Institute for
Educational Planning (UNESCO): Paris, France, 2010; pp. 10–12.
30. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Preserving Quality and Standards through a
Time of Rapid Change: UK Higher Education in 2020–21. 2020. Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.
uk/docs/qaa/guidance/preserving-quality-and-standards-through-a-time-of-rapid-change.pdf (accessed on
6 November 2020).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10032 14 of 14

31. Bretag, T. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 1st ed.; Springer Science + Business Media: Singapore, 2016;
pp. 3–22.
32. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Assessing with Integrity in Digital Delivery. 2020.
Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/assessing-with-integrity-in-digital-delivery.pdf
(accessed on 28 September 2020).
33. The University of Waterloo. Confidentiality Agreement & Statement of Honesty. Available online: https:
//uwaterloo.ca/academic-integrity/sites/ca.academic-integrity/files/uploads/files/honour_statement.pdf
(accessed on 28 September 2020).
34. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Contacting to Cheat in Higher Education: How to
Address Essay Mills and Contract Cheating. 2017. Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/
guidance/contracting-to-cheat-in-higher-education-2nd-edition.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2020).
35. Deakin University. Available online: http://wordpress-ms.deakin.edu.au/dteach/wp-content/uploads/sites/
103/2020/03/DigitalExamsAssessmentGuide1.pdf?_ga=2.217745174.1869770854.1601470891-1753161286.
1601470891 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
36. UC SanDiego. Available online: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Moving-to-Remote-Assessments-
with-Integrity.html?soid=1129123483094&aid=9byY06J_J9s (accessed on 28 September 2020).
37. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. COVID-19: Thematic Guidance—Practice and
Lab-based Assessment. 2017. Available online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/covid-19-thematic-
guidance-practice-lab-based-assessment.pdf?sfvrsn=f3cccd81_6 (accessed on 29 September 2020).
38. Universities UK. 2020. Available online: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/
Documents/2020/principles-and-considerations-emerging-from-lockdown-june-2020.pdf (accessed on
6 September 2020).

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).